What I don’t understand is why you are framing it is if it has to be one or the other. The book has contradictions. Also sometimes the pope/church scholars look at a section and go “for a while we thought this section meant X. We now think it means Y.” They didn’t rewrite anything or add a new rule or something. They just reinterpreted the text.

We reinterpret law. We reinterpret scholarly works. We reinterpret famous literature. We reinterpret historical texts. And yes, the church sometimes reinterprets scripture.

Reinterpreting text doesn’t mean that the text can’t contain contradictions. I’m not really sure where you’re getting that idea. Again, it’s not one or the other. You’re basically saying the church can’t ever go “hey we think this is more accurate so we are now updating things” for some reason. Which would be utterly bizarre for someone to assert in any other domain.